When is Violence Acceptable in Society? – The Fascist/Antifa question.

I am playing catch up with the recent dust-up around the choice of tactics used by Antifa in the United States in it’s struggle against the proto-fascist elements energized by the current Republican Administration led by Trump. There are several sources in this brief overview, first from a academic journal to help with the context of state violence, then a rough sketch of the position taken by Hedges and Chomsky, and finally the reply found in Counterpunch. The last article from Counterpunch, is a retort to Chris Hedges, a voice on the credentialed left who has taken a stance against the violent tactics used by Antifa.

We’ll be visiting Hedges’ article (and criticism)on Truthdig in a later post, but for now, examining the question of violence and how it is used, and by who it is used by in society provides a stepping stone toward providing a more nuanced entry into this debate. To better understand how (in just one way) the state uses violence to arrange society we turn to an article written by Carol Nagengast, in the Annual Review of Anthropology titled Violence, Terror, and The Crisis of the State (p. 24):

“The state must be a state of mind that divides people into the purified and honest who do legitimate work and a politically suspect or criminal,deviant underworld of aliens, communists, loafers, delinquents, even thieves, killers, and drug lords who do not. The violent dissident must be positionedand repositioned as necessary, “in a negative relationship with middle-class rational masculinity, a model that ensures a relationship of dominance andsubordination … by locking the two into a mutually defaming relationship”

(16:15,21). In the United States, the presumed idleness of the unemployed, the poverty-stricken, the drug user or gang member, the single parent, gay man orlesbian woman (all the latter with overtones of promiscuity and contagious disease) is also seen as violence against the social body. It cannot be just anyold work; it must be work that contributes to what dominant groups have defined as the common good (153).

The hegemony of respectable culture and good taste and the denigration of what is represented as the disgusting, degenerate, worthless, criminal lowerparts of the social body is so strong that, according to a poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News in September 1989, 66% of those surveyedfavored random searches of peoples’ houses, cars, and personal belongings, even if the police had no suspicion of any wrongdoing. Seventy-two percentsaid they approved of censorship of any film depicting illegal drug use. People have been so inoculated with the fear of evil and with the myth of an essentialrelationship of repression to the cure of society, that they are willing to give up some of their own rights for what has been defined as the good of the socialbody”

The questions the fascist/antifa situation embodies goes back to the genesis of why we have states in the first place and the techniques used (see the myth of the relationship between the use of repression to cure soceity) to maintain order in said States. The use of fear to discipline society is nothing new, case in point, consider the the fear cultivated in the buildups to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The use/misuse of fear as a cultural motivator in Western society is being replayed yet again on the national (within the US) instead of international stage. Looking toward answering the question of who gets to legitimately use violence in society with regards to the fascist/antifa question Noam Chomsky opines:

“As for Antifa, it’s a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were,” Noam Chomsky told the Washington Examiner. “It’s a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant.” Many activists affiliated with the loosely organized Antifa movement consider themselves anarchists or socialists. They often wear black and take measures to conceal their identity. Chomsky said, “what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally self-destructive.” “When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it’s the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is,”

So, it would seem that Chomsky and Hedges, who cites this interview, believe that the antifa use of violence is not the correct course of action. The counterpoint to their assertion comes in with Ramona E. Durán and Gabriel Rockhill’s response:

“One crucial question in this regard is why the conversation about violence that is continually re-staged in the media overwhelmingly focuses on tactics of resistance by the underclasses. Among those who are vociferously proclaiming a pure form of “non-violence” as an unquestionable moral principle, who of them is arguing that this principle should be applied to the corporate state and all of its imperial endeavors? Alongside the countless statements reprimanding anti-capitalist activists for street scuffles, where are the articles calling for the dismantling of the military-industrial complex, the dissolution of the police force, or the abolition of the prison system? Why isn’t the debate around non-violence centered precisely on those who have all of the power and all of the weapons? Is it because violence has actually worked successfully in these cases to impose a very specific top-down agenda, which includes shutting out anyone who calls it into question, and diligently managing the perception of their actions? Is violence somehow acceptable here because it is the violence of the victors, who are the ones who presume to have the right—and in any case have the power—to define the very nature of violence (as anything that threatens them)?

Clearly, the fetishization of non-violence is reserved for the actions of the underlings. They are the ones who, again and again, are told that they must be civil (and are never sufficiently so), and that the best way to attain their objectives is by obeying the moral dictates of those above. Let us recall, in this light, James Baldwin’s powerful statement in the context of the black liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s: “The only time non-violence is admired is when the Negroes practice it.”

So, what is the answer here? How effective will violent leftist action be, and will the backlash further empower state repression? Will the backlash continue to inoculate the citizenry with fear of violent ‘leftist violence’ thus justifying an increase in state use of coercive and repressive force against the left even though the initiators of said violence (aka the proto-fascist/nationalist Right in the US) are ultimately responsible for the situation in question?

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

13 comments

I’m a little confused about what violence antifa have actually been accused of. Perhaps I’ve missed something, but the conversation should never drift from the actual subject: the presence of fascists on the streets.

There is no “answer.” There is a journey and you are looking for the destination and missing the point. These things need to be worked out, which they will not be if all of the participants are passive actors.

As you imply Arb and Noam expressed, violent characters are a tiny fringe of these already minor sized groups. It’s used as fodder for the US MIC/ media which needs some affective content so the drone killings of a couple dozen women and children every week won’t be an issue. All it takes is a modicum of impatience from a few on the left to provide a free pass for the police state. The police state is not passive nor vulnerable in a fight. The only power people have is numbers and “The Bern” seriously scared them.

I’m concerned about the framing of this situation. Charlottesville isn’t an example of “leftist violence.” From what I understand, the Charlottesville police did nothing to help the counter protesters, not even when they were surrounded by FLAME WIELDING NAZIS (just so nobody is confused about whether the Nazis were armed or not – yes they were). So anti-fa stepped in. According to Virginia law they are likely protected under the Good Samaritan law. (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

Part of the problem with Trump – aside from the fact that he refuses to denounce white supremacist domestic terrorism in his own country – is that he tried to make this an issue of legality. “Nazis had a permit and they didn’t” as if anti-fas had no right to counter protest or protect citizens who were being harassed and terrorized on the street. As far as I can tell they actually do have a right to do both. I have yet to see a lawyer argue effectively otherwise.

Understanding this doesn’t require liking anti-fas or agreeing with everything they do. I don’t agree with some of the things anti-fas has done but I don’t agree with Pelosi denouncing them after Charlottesville either (though I understand why she did – women are expected to defuse violent males no matter how detrimental it is to herself). This is not a both-siderism situation: on one side there was a fire wielding mob of steroid pumped white men shouting about Jews and on the other side were everyday working class Americans standing up to them and saying NO to that. There were Nazis and not-Nazis. It’s not at all complicated, at least not to me.

Aside from Charlottesville itself, the debate about violence itself has never included women. The discussion is largely American men arguing with other American men about what constitutes violence and who has a right to inflict it. As long as it’s framed that way, there is no way for women to say NO to it without being branded as a collaborator. But that’s the point, isn’t it? Make women defuse the bombs while the men stand around and argue about when they’re going to go off.

I believe the violent antifa movement is counterproductive. I do not agree with the framing used by those authors, and I do not demonize those groups. I am not sure why the authors are desperate to link those things. Every action inspires on opposite and equal reaction. We really need to focus and come together as people, discussing things rationally and calmly. Why give fuel to people like Trump? It fuels the idea that “both sides” come at each other and get ugly. Hard to see that as helpful.

“I’m concerned about the framing of this situation. Charlottesville isn’t an example of “leftist violence.”

The Right alt-media has had so much practice in framing these issues that the ‘leftist-violence’ tack, once inserted into the MSM, almost immediately received a significant amount of traction.

I agree with you in part, that the framing of this issue is way off.

“Part of the problem with Trump – aside from the fact that he refuses to denounce white supremacist domestic terrorism in his own country – is that he tried to make this an issue of legality.”

A decent person would simply denounce the actions of white supremacists chanting ‘blood and soil’ and the like. The problem, as you correctly identify, is that a bowl of mini-wheats has more moral/ethical fibre that Trump does. When the leader of the free world doesn’t condone racist behaviour happening in his backyard, it sends a very strong message as to what his priorities are.

” There were Nazis and not-Nazis. It’s not at all complicated, at least not to me.:

In this situation, the boundaries between the groups involved seemed quite clear.

” The discussion is largely American men arguing with other American men about what constitutes violence and who has a right to inflict it. As long as it’s framed that way, there is no way for women to say NO to it without being branded as a collaborator.”

The male monopoly on violence makes this issue even more formidable to overcome. Dealing with, and attempting to change the superstructure of society in the midst of a crisis is a daunting task. The problem is that separating the systemic features from the ones being realized will never be possible, and thus, reform must be wrought in the crucible of the now, of the current, and a new way must be forced into the consciousness of the the public.

When the Second Wave was fomenting debate and women were more organized, I think moments like this could have been seized upon, naming the problem of male violence and making it the beginning of the conversation, because white supremacy and male supremacy and the violence that goes with those two concepts are societal problems that share similar roots and thus similar solutions.

” Make women defuse the bombs while the men stand around and argue about when they’re going to go off.”

I think the potential to for violent antifa movements to painted by the government/media as violent leftist movements that are a threat to the public is counter productive.

“We really need to focus and come together as people, discussing things rationally and calmly.”

Those in power will never cede power voluntarily. Their societal power must be wrung from their grasping hands. Discussing things rationally and calmly can happen after the revolution (wow, going full revolutionary zeal here, apologies).

I would very much like to believe that we can resolve issues like this with discussion and mutual agreement and the like. But then, I need only to reference my comment section or any comment section on a feminist article to see how those in power deal with dissenters and those who threaten the system from below.

They won’t change unless forced to change. I’m not sure how else to get around this barrier.

“It fuels the idea that “both sides” come at each other and get ugly. Hard to see that as helpful.”

I usually cast a long side-eye at social media, but in some cases it goes to ground slightly ahead of the MSM and if carefully observed, gives people perspective on what is going on before the various factions in the traditional put their spin on it (not all outlets, as some still do attempt to do the journalism thing).

I hope that people can see past the framing that the alt-right media is attempting to do on in this case.

Arb, violent antifa movements are, in fact, a threat to the public, though the people they are using violence against may not always seem like sympathetic victims. The means are the ends. You may not lose any sleep when they attack Neo-Nazis, but violent antifa have also literally raised their baseball bats to women in CA who objected to transwomen decimating their rights. These bats were brought into a pride parade under the guise of being “mobility devices.” Self-righteous male antifa leftists beating natal women with baseball bats — where does it end? Vigilantism isn’t the answer. Women will be the victims in your violent “revolution” should you get it. The common people are clearly at a financial disadvantage, but what we do have is people power, and historically that is what changes things in the USA. Women’s suffrage and repealing Jim Crow were not establishment ideas, but they still succeeded, and they succeeded without the violent antifa distraction. The means are the ends. Change may come much slower than we prefer, but antifa is no shortcut.

I don’t have a bit of problem with redemptive violence, and the only good fascist is a dead one.

That said, I find anarchists to be illogical little brats who are more concerned with “fuck the man” than in putting forth any logical, politically expedient worldview of their own.

Personally, I’ve had a lot of trouble with anarchists and liberal communists. They deplore Marxist Leninism even though they claim to be fighting for the same thing. When the shit goes down I’d fight beside them but outside the struggle against capitalism and neo-reactionaries, these are people I wouldn’t so much trust with running a boarding kennel let alone a society.